Ligand and Structure-based Methodologies for the Prediction of the Activity of G Protein-coupled Receptor Ligands

Overview

Journal J Comput Aided Mol Des

Publisher Springer

Specialties Biomedical Engineering
Molecular Biology

Date 2008 May 17

PMID 18483766

Citations 12

Authors

Stefano Costanzi

Irina G Tikhonova

T Kendall Harden

Kenneth A Jacobson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Accurate in silico models for the quantitative prediction of the activity of G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) ligands would greatly facilitate the process of drug discovery and development. Several methodologies have been developed based on the properties of the ligands, the direct study of the receptor-ligand interactions, or a combination of both approaches. Ligand-based three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships (3D-QSAR) techniques, not requiring knowledge of the receptor structure, have been historically the first to be applied to the prediction of the activity of GPCR ligands. They are generally endowed with robustness and good ranking ability; however they are highly dependent on training sets. Structure-based techniques generally do not provide the level of accuracy necessary to yield meaningful rankings when applied to GPCR homology models. However, they are essentially independent from training sets and have a sufficient level of accuracy to allow an effective discrimination between binders and nonbinders, thus qualifying as viable lead discovery tools. The combination of ligand and structure-based methodologies in the form of receptor-based 3D-QSAR and ligand and structure-based consensus models results in robust and accurate quantitative predictions. The contribution of the structure-based component to these combined approaches is expected to become more substantial and effective in the future, as more sophisticated scoring functions are developed and more detailed structural information on GPCRs is gathered.

Citing Articles

Cytotoxic Potential of AUMC14342 Mycoendophyte Extract: A Study Combined with LC-MS/MS Metabolic Profiling and Molecular Docking Simulation.

Al Mousa A, Abouelela M, Hassane A, Al-Khattaf F, Hatamleh A, Alabdulhadi H Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2022; 44(10):5067-5085.

PMID: 36286059 PMC: 9600980. DOI: 10.3390/cimb44100344.

L-type prostaglandin D synthase regulates the trafficking of the PGD DP1 receptor by interacting with the GTPase Rab4.

Binda C, Genier S, Degrandmaison J, Picard S, Frechette L, Jean S J Biol Chem. 2019; 294(45):16865-16883.

PMID: 31575663 PMC: 6851311. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.RA119.008233.

Hybrid receptor structure/ligand-based docking and activity prediction in ICM: development and evaluation in D3R Grand Challenge 3.

Lam P, Abagyan R, Totrov M J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2018; 33(1):35-46.

PMID: 30094533 DOI: 10.1007/s10822-018-0139-5.

An unbiased method to build benchmarking sets for ligand-based virtual screening and its application to GPCRs.

Xia J, Jin H, Liu Z, Zhang L, Wang X J Chem Inf Model. 2014; 54(5):1433-50.

PMID: 24749745 PMC: 4038372. DOI: 10.1021/ci500062f.

Current progress in Structure-Based Rational Drug Design marks a new mindset in drug discovery.

Lounnas V, Ritschel T, Kelder J, McGuire R, Bywater R, Foloppe N Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2014; 5:e201302011.

PMID: 24688704 PMC: 3962124. DOI: 10.5936/csbj.201302011.

References

Aqvist J, Medina C, Samuelsson J . A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design. Protein Eng. 1994; 7(3):385-91. DOI: 10.1093/protein/7.3.385. View

Moro S, Bacilieri M, Cacciari B, Spalluto G . Autocorrelation of molecular electrostatic potential surface properties combined with partial least squares analysis as new strategy for the prediction of the activity of human A(3) adenosine receptor antagonists. J Med Chem. 2005; 48(18):5698-704. DOI: 10.1021/jm0502440. View

Cramer R, Patterson D, Bunce J . Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc. 2011; 110(18):5959-67. DOI: 10.1021/ja00226a005. View

Cherezov V, Rosenbaum D, Hanson M, Rasmussen S, Thian F, Kobilka T . High-resolution crystal structure of an engineered human beta2-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptor. Science. 2007; 318(5854):1258-65. PMC: 2583103. DOI: 10.1126/science.1150577. View

Sippl W . Binding affinity prediction of novel estrogen receptor ligands using receptor-based 3-D QSAR methods. Bioorg Med Chem. 2002; 10(12):3741-55. DOI: 10.1016/s0968-0896(02)00375-9. View

Sippl W . Receptor-based 3D QSAR analysis of estrogen receptor ligands--merging the accuracy of receptor-based alignments with the computational efficiency of ligand-based methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2000; 14(6):559-72. DOI: 10.1023/a:1008115913787. View

Evers A, Klebe G . Successful virtual screening for a submicromolar antagonist of the neurokinin-1 receptor based on a ligand-supported homology model. J Med Chem. 2004; 47(22):5381-92. DOI: 10.1021/jm0311487. View

Moro S, Van Rhee A, Sanders L, Jacobson K . Flavonoid derivatives as adenosine receptor antagonists: a comparison of the hypothetical receptor binding site based on a comparative molecular field analysis model. J Med Chem. 1998; 41(1):46-52. PMC: 10802111. DOI: 10.1021/jm970446z. View

Rognan D, Lauemoller S, Holm A, Buus S, Tschinke V . Predicting binding affinities of protein ligands from three-dimensional models: application to peptide binding to class I major histocompatibility proteins. J Med Chem. 1999; 42(22):4650-8. DOI: 10.1021/jm9910775. View

10.

Coupez B, Lewis R . Docking and scoring--theoretically easy, practically impossible?. Curr Med Chem. 2006; 13(25):2995-3003. DOI: 10.2174/092986706778521797. View

11.

Day P, Rasmussen S, Parnot C, Fung J, Masood A, Kobilka T . A monoclonal antibody for G protein-coupled receptor crystallography. Nat Methods. 2007; 4(11):927-9. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth1112. View

12.

Costanzi S, Tikhonova I, Ohno M, Roh E, Joshi B, Colson A . P2Y1 antagonists: combining receptor-based modeling and QSAR for a quantitative prediction of the biological activity based on consensus scoring. J Med Chem. 2007; 50(14):3229-41. DOI: 10.1021/jm0700971. View

13.

Klebe G, Abraham U, Mietzner T . Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. J Med Chem. 1994; 37(24):4130-46. DOI: 10.1021/jm00050a010. View

14.

Gutierrez-de-Teran H, Pastor M, Centeno N, Aqvist J, Sanz F . Comparative analysis of putative agonist-binding modes in the human A1 adenosine receptor. Chembiochem. 2004; 5(6):841-9. DOI: 10.1002/cbic.200300817. View

15.

Pierce K, Premont R, Lefkowitz R . Seven-transmembrane receptors. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002; 3(9):639-50. DOI: 10.1038/nrm908. View

16.

Patny A, Desai P, Avery M . Homology modeling of G-protein-coupled receptors and implications in drug design. Curr Med Chem. 2006; 13(14):1667-91. DOI: 10.2174/092986706777442002. View

17.

Moro S, Bacilieri M, Ferrari C, Spalluto G . Autocorrelation of molecular electrostatic potential surface properties combined with partial least squares analysis as alternative attractive tool to generate ligand-based 3D-QSARs. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2006; 2(1):13-21. DOI: 10.2174/1570163053175439. View

18.

Evers A, Hessler G, Matter H, Klabunde T . Virtual screening of biogenic amine-binding G-protein coupled receptors: comparative evaluation of protein- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols. J Med Chem. 2005; 48(17):5448-65. DOI: 10.1021/jm050090o. View

19.

Jones G, Willett P, Glen R . Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. J Mol Biol. 1995; 245(1):43-53. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-2836(95)80037-9. View

20.

Bissantz C, Schalon C, Guba W, Stahl M . Focused library design in GPCR projects on the example of 5-HT(2c) agonists: comparison of structure-based virtual screening with ligand-based search methods. Proteins. 2005; 61(4):938-52. DOI: 10.1002/prot.20651. View